Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Legal, Intended, and Permitted

Below is my rough translation
and some comments regarding Mark 10:1-12, which is part of the lectionary
reading for Sunday, October 7. The lectionary also includes vv.13-16, but I see
those verses as a separate pericope and will not treat them here.

I view these conversations
between Jesus and the Pharisees, then Jesus and the disciples, as arguments
over the nature of interpreting Scripture, namely Deuteronomy 24:1-4. As usual,
your comments are welcomed.

ἐπηρώτων: IAI 3p, ἐπερωτάω, 1) to accost one with an enquiry, put a
question to, enquiry of, ask, interrogate 2) to address one with a
request or demand 2a) to ask of or demand of one

ἔξεστιν: PAI 3s, ἔξεστι, 1) it is lawful

ἀπολῦσαι: AAInf, ἀπολύω, 1) to set free 2) to let go,
dismiss, (to detain no longer) … 4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the
house, to repudiate.

πειράζοντες: PAPart npm, πειράζω, 1) to try whether a thing can be
done 1a) to attempt, endeavor 2) to try, make trial of, test: for
the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he
will behave himself

3 ὁδὲἀποκριθεὶςεἶπεναὐτοῖς,ΤίὑμῖνἐνετείλατοΜωϋσῆς;

Yet answering he said
to them, “What did Moses command to you?”

ἀποκριθεὶς: APPart nsm, ἀποκρίνομαι, 1) to give an answer to a question
proposed, to answer

The participle, ἀποκριθεὶς, is an
aorist passive participle, which I typically phrase as “having …” (e.g. “having
approached” above). But, in this verse it does not appear that Jesus has
answered the question before posing the question about Moses’ command. In fact,
he has asked them about Moses’ command instead of answering their question.

4 οἱδὲεἶπαν,ἘπέτρεψενΜωϋσῆςβιβλίον ἀποστασίουγράψαικαὶἀπολῦσαι.

Yet they said, “Moses
permitted to write a writ of divorce and to divorce.”

γράψαι: AAInf, γράφω, 1) to write, with reference to the form
of the letters … write down, record

ἀπολῦσαι: AAInf, ἀπολύω, 1) to set free 2) to let go,
dismiss, (to detain no longer) … 4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the
house, to repudiate.

1. At this point, the original
question posed by the Pharisees has been answered and it is the answer that
they knew all along. However, the story continues, indicating that there is a
greater point to this story than what the law actually says.

2. The reference here is to
Deuteronomy 24:1-4: Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but
she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and
so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her
out of his house; she then leaves his houseand
goes off to become another man’s wife.Then
suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in
her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her
dies);her first husband, who sent her
away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been
defiled; for that would be abhorrent to theLord, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that
theLord your
God is giving you as a possession.

As one can see, the point of
this law is not whether or not one can get a divorce. The point is that one
cannot re-marry a former spouse who has been married and divorced by someone
else along the way. While the passage does not suggest that she – by virtue of
having been through a first marriage and divorce – is ‘defiled’ to her second
husband, it does suggest that by going through the second marriage and divorce
she is now defiled for a repeat marriage to her first husband. The matter of “writing
a bill of divorce” is taken for granted
here as a practice. Perhaps it is this status of “things taken for granted”
that the word “permit” signifies.

I like how the ‘olde English’
versions translate Ἐπέτρεψεν as “suffer” – as in “Suffer the little children to come
unto me” or “Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement.” This is not the
same word as παθεῖν, as in Mark 8:31 “the
Son of Man must suffer.” My interest is in how this older usage of the English language
displays some relationship between ‘permitting’ and ‘suffering.’ Does is
suggest that granting permission exacts a cost of some sort by the one permitting?

5ὁδὲἸησοῦςεἶπεναὐτοῖς,Πρὸςτὴν σκληροκαρδίανὑμῶνἔγραψενὑμῖντὴν

ἐντολὴνταύτην.

Yet Jesus said to
them, “To your hardened heart he wrote to you this law.”

εἶπεν: AAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 1a) affirm
over, maintain

ἔγραψεν: AAI 3s, γράφω, 1) to write, with reference to the form
of the letters … write down, record

For the Pharisees to recognize
that divorce is “permitted” and for Jesus to show that there is context for
this permission, suggests that this conversation is about how to interpret
Scripture, and not just about whether the law says this or that. This is a much
more sophisticated approach to reading Scripture than to repeat II Timothy 3:16
(“All Scripture is inspired by God) as some kind of mechanical event, whereby
God dictates every word of Scripture as equally inspired. Jesus suggests a keen
interdependence behind this law. The law not only reflects God’s way to God’s
people, but it was written with at least some sensitivity to the human situation
– in this case, hard-heartedness. This law is not the apodictic law that simply
expresses a requirement or prohibition; it is the conditional law that is given
‘by Moses’ in a way that befits human experience, limitations, and sinfulness.

The word for “hard hearted” σκληροκαρδίαν (sclero-cardia),
is would be familiar to the medical profession, which continue to use these
Greek words to describe calcification of the heart (or arteries, etc.).

In the end, the “permission” of
Deuteronomy 24 is not a reflection of what God wills as much as it is a
concession by Moses to human failings. Is it lawful? Yes, but not in the same
way that “Love your neighbor as yourself” is lawful.

6ἀπὸδὲἀρχῆς κτίσεωςἄρσενκαὶθῆλυἐποίησεναὐτούς:

Yet from the
beginning of creation male and female he made them;

ἐποίησεν: AAI 3s, ποιέω, 1) to make 1a) with the names of
things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc

Jesus moves to the first
creation story as a way of reaching for something more fundamental than a
proviso that is rooted in Moses’ concession human hard-heartedness. The
original community of male and female were, in some way, a reflection of the
image and likeness of God (who, in this story, speaks in plurality – “Let us
make humanity in our image…”)

7ἕνεκεντούτουκαταλείψει ἄνθρωποςτὸνπατέρααὐτοῦκαὶτὴνμητέρα

[καὶπροσκολληθήσεταιπρὸς τὴνγυναῖκααὐτοῦ],

For this a man will
leave behind his father and the mother [and will hold fast to his woman.]

The latter [bracketed] portion
of this verse is not in many of the earliest manuscripts.

8καὶἔσονταιοἱδύοεἰςσάρκαμίαν:ὥστεοὐκέτιεἰσὶν δύοἀλλὰμίασάρξ.

and the two will be
into one flesh; so they are no longer two but one flesh.

ἔσονται: FMI 3p, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be
present

εἰσὶν: PAI 3p, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be
present

This verse is about sex, right?
The word “flesh” is used twice, two fleshes becoming one flesh and, in the first
half of this statement, two will be into
one flesh. My sense is that the preposition into indicates that this is talking
about copulation. The only reason I find this important to note is that we
often romanticize this text to make it “two hearts that beat as one,” or
something like. What is at stake in Deut.24 is whether a woman who has been
married and divorced, then married and divorced to a second husband, can be re-married
to the first husband. The permission to divorce in Deut.24 is based on human
failure, not what God wills. What I don’t know is whether the proviso “she does
not please him” in Deut. 24 is an explicit reference to sexual pleasure. If
that is the case, the whole notion of desire, boredom, then desire to
re-conquer the same woman who has been another man’s woman means that this a law
concedes to some forms of human vagary, but not to all of them.

9ὃοὖνὁθεὸςσυνέζευξενἄνθρωποςμὴχωριζέτω.

Therefore whom God
has joined together no person may separate.

συνέζευξεν: AAI 3s, συζεύγνυμι, 1) to fasten to one yoke, yoke
together 2) to join together unite 2a) of the marriage tie

I wonder what people hear
whenever a pastor says these words at a wedding. This verse – if I am reading the
context of Deut.24 correctly – suggests that this is a 3rd person
imperative saying that nobody is allowed to pursue either of the married couple
any more as a sexual partner and that neither of the couple is allowed to
pursue others as sexual partners, even if they grow bored with one another.

When the Pharisees interrogated
Jesus (for my use of “interrogate” see below) they did so in order to test him.
Does the word “again” indicate that the disciples, likewise, are testing Jesus
in some way?

11καὶλέγει αὐτοῖς,Ὃςἂνἀπολύσῃτὴνγυναῖκααὐτοῦκαὶγαμήσῃἄλλην

μοιχᾶταιἐπ' αὐτήν,

And he says to them, “Whoever
might divorce his woman and might marry another is adulterated by/against her.”

λέγει: PAI 3s, , λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 1a) affirm
over, maintain

ἀπολύσῃ: AASubj 3s, ἀπολύω, 1) to set free 2) to let go,
dismiss, (to detain no longer) … 4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the
house, to repudiate.

γαμήσῃ: AASubj 3s, γαμέω, 1) to lead in marriage, take to
wife 1a) to get married, to marry 1b) to give one's self in
marriage 2) to give a daughter in marriage

1. The verb “adulterate” is in
the passive voice. Most translations make it an active – indeed a very strongly
active – voice, “commits adultery.” But to say, “commits adultery” makes
adultery the object of a verb that is not actually here. I am trying to retain
the passive voice, but there is very little company here among other
translations.

2. What is the antecedent to the
pronoun ‘her’? Is it ‘his woman’ or ‘another’? Both potential antecedents and
the pronoun are feminine singular.

3. The preposition ἐπ' can mean a variety
of things, depending on the context. If one chooses ‘by’ or ‘against’ that would
sway the meaning of the verse and create its own context. This is a really fine
area for translators.

12καὶἐὰναὐτὴἀπολύσασατὸνἄνδρααὐτῆςγαμήσῃἄλλονμοιχᾶται.

And if she having
divorced her man might marry another she is adulterated.

ἀπολύσασα: AAPart nsf, ἀπολύω, 1) to set free 2) to let go,
dismiss, (to detain no longer) … 4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the
house, to repudiate.

γαμήσῃ: AASubj 3s, γαμέω, 1) to lead in marriage, take to
wife 1a) to get married, to marry 1b) to give one's self in
marriage 2) to give a daughter in marriage

The question arises whether it
was even a real option for a woman to divorce a man legally. Part of the answer
would like in whether by ‘legal’ one is referring to the Law of Moses or to the
Romanic law in force in 1st century Palestine.

Looking at how Mark uses the
verb ἐπερωτάω, which could simply mean “to ask” but also carries the
connotation of a challenge, I have translated it as “interrogate.” Because it
is Mark’s word for confrontational conversations – Jesus and demons, Pharisees
and Scribe and Jesus, etc. – I translate it confrontationally – at least in the
rough translation.

No comments:

Post a Comment

If you want to leave a comment using only your name, please click the name/url option. I don't believe you have to sign in or anything like that by using that option. You may also use the 'anonymous' option if you want. Just be nice.

About Me

Blog Archive

What Is This Blog, Anyway?

This blog is a weekly translation of a text from the Revised Common Lectionary.It is my rough translation in bold with some initial comments in blue, all of which are subject to change as we journey together. That's why I welcome your comments.